blahblah100
Apr 28, 02:54 PM
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
And you've just proved my point. The iPad is completely useless until it is synced to a PC.
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
And you've just proved my point. The iPad is completely useless until it is synced to a PC.
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:41 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:04 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
I see where you are coming from, but these reports has nothing to do what you or I or MR thinks whether the iPad is *technically* a pc ... the reports are used to communicate to an audience interested in understanding where the market is heading so that they can make more money.
These are sales/shipment reports. The reason why the iPad is grouped in is because they compete for the same consumer dollar pool and execs from companies want to understand the direction of market and where the money is going.
If anything there's any criticism, I would like to see a consumer vs enterprise breakdown (since they have different dollar pools).
Also, I think the reason why 'Apple slipped' is because Calendar Q4 quarter is the holiday season and usually consumer electronics sales surges and unlike HP/Dell (who sell alot to enterprise), Apple sell mostly to consumers electronics market.
P.
I see where you are coming from, but these reports has nothing to do what you or I or MR thinks whether the iPad is *technically* a pc ... the reports are used to communicate to an audience interested in understanding where the market is heading so that they can make more money.
These are sales/shipment reports. The reason why the iPad is grouped in is because they compete for the same consumer dollar pool and execs from companies want to understand the direction of market and where the money is going.
If anything there's any criticism, I would like to see a consumer vs enterprise breakdown (since they have different dollar pools).
Also, I think the reason why 'Apple slipped' is because Calendar Q4 quarter is the holiday season and usually consumer electronics sales surges and unlike HP/Dell (who sell alot to enterprise), Apple sell mostly to consumers electronics market.
P.
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 10:21 PM
No way. Apple will continue to release new hardware and updates as the iPhone continues through it's lifecycle. It is a recognized brand and like it or not, the control Apple exerts over the user experience maintains it's value.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Android my not be recognizable to the average consumer but GOOGLE sure as hell is.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Android my not be recognizable to the average consumer but GOOGLE sure as hell is.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
baryon
May 6, 01:42 PM
This is ridiculous, I have never had a dropped call in my life with O2 here in the UK, or with T-Mobile in the rest of Europe, except when going into tunnels, but that's totally normal!
THX1139
Jul 13, 03:15 AM
We were talking about MacPro's when you basically asked "well, what about Adobe?". Well, what about it? Why does everything have to be about Adobe, when the fact is that macs are used for zillion other things besides running Photoshop?
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
alex_ant
Oct 11, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
Or perhaps the people who say Macs are too slow are the ones who would like more time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid?
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
Or perhaps the people who say Macs are too slow are the ones who would like more time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid?
leekohler
Mar 25, 03:39 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
res1233
May 2, 03:24 PM
I love how you all pretend like this is the first piece of intrusive software (Malware) for Macs or like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
Dude, the only viruses antivirus software ever pick up are Windows viruses, to prevent them from being passed along unintentionally to windows users. Most of what "antivirus" software does for macs is catch other forms of malware which are not viruses. This is part of the confusion about what the word "virus" means. The correct term for this software should be "antimalware", but the average consumer wouldn't know what that is if they saw it, so the misinformation continues.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
Dude, the only viruses antivirus software ever pick up are Windows viruses, to prevent them from being passed along unintentionally to windows users. Most of what "antivirus" software does for macs is catch other forms of malware which are not viruses. This is part of the confusion about what the word "virus" means. The correct term for this software should be "antimalware", but the average consumer wouldn't know what that is if they saw it, so the misinformation continues.
Tommyg117
Sep 21, 08:50 AM
I'm really excited for this. I can't wait to get it in my hands and experiment.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 10:04 PM
So this site is for fanboys only?
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
stcanard
Mar 18, 01:04 PM
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry.
I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.
With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.
Apple has already signed all the major labels, and realistically they don't dare back out. This will come up in contract negotiations only.
The indies don't care nearly as much about DRM, they don't make money through moving huge numbers of tracks, but through raising awareness of the artists leading to concert and merchandising sales.
Overall the cat's out of the bad, its turned into a (dare I say it?) Tiger, and nobody's putting it back in.
I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.
With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.
Apple has already signed all the major labels, and realistically they don't dare back out. This will come up in contract negotiations only.
The indies don't care nearly as much about DRM, they don't make money through moving huge numbers of tracks, but through raising awareness of the artists leading to concert and merchandising sales.
Overall the cat's out of the bad, its turned into a (dare I say it?) Tiger, and nobody's putting it back in.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
DroidRules
Apr 21, 12:10 AM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
I almost shot milk out my nose! Funny cause it's true. :D
http://youtu.be/8DYje57V_BY
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
I almost shot milk out my nose! Funny cause it's true. :D
http://youtu.be/8DYje57V_BY
bleachthru
Mar 18, 10:24 PM
All I have to sya is F*&% the RIAA, They are just a bunch of profiteering gluttons anyways. Kudos to whomever cracked the DRM, good work.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
Piggie
Apr 9, 10:49 AM
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
Oh yes, believe me, I agree fully with what you say, SOME games are superb with on screen touch controls. Some games are only really practical with on screen touch controls.
Without any question, there is a large area of entertainment software and simple utilities that work excellently be being able to press a button, pull something on screen, push and twist things on screen.
Indeed, this method of control works superb for certain styles of software.
However, there are also a whole range of applications and games that are just not realistically possible with touch screen commands.
Naturally any applications that are very complex and require many many layers of multiple menu's and commands to do what they do. Some role playing games which have many key commands you need to access fast to call upon certain actions/commands (some of these are not even really possible on a console controller and need a keyboard)
Plus I suppose most obviously First Person Perspective games, when you need to move in all 3 dimensions, jumping, shooting, spinning rout with split second timing and precision.
Unless you wish to dumb down games (which I don't think many really want) there needs to be some option.
For small devices, Touch, Phone, I don't see Apple doing much as there are naturally for simple/quick games on the move. You are not really going to settle down for a few hour gaming session on your phone much of the time.
Slide out keyboard I can't see happen.
To be honest, the most workable idea would be an Optional official bluetooth Apple games controller, Like a PS3, or 360 controller, with all the normal buttons and joysticks that a dev can choose to support if they want.
Then as a user, you can select between on-screen controls or the optional controller if you have one.
That's the easiest and most practical answer, and would hurt no-one and could only be a positive.
Unfortunately, we have a problem. Steve Jobs, who appears to have personal mental issues, and only wishes to pursue one path and feels offering things like such a device/option would not be a POSITIVE thing for customers, but he appears to view things like that as a NEGATIVE thing, feeling that it's admitting failure of a touch screen to be the answer to everything.
It's like a stylus. For some tasks a fine tipped stylus (like a fine tipped brush when painting) is better than a thick brush (a finger) and yet he comes out with silly childish comments like "Stylus = Fail" rather than speaking like an adult and accepting that for some things, such a option would be better.
I guess we will see what happens.
Perhaps there is more possibility in time a Bluetooth joystick controller option will be more lightly on future Android/Honeycomb tablets for gaming.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
Oh yes, believe me, I agree fully with what you say, SOME games are superb with on screen touch controls. Some games are only really practical with on screen touch controls.
Without any question, there is a large area of entertainment software and simple utilities that work excellently be being able to press a button, pull something on screen, push and twist things on screen.
Indeed, this method of control works superb for certain styles of software.
However, there are also a whole range of applications and games that are just not realistically possible with touch screen commands.
Naturally any applications that are very complex and require many many layers of multiple menu's and commands to do what they do. Some role playing games which have many key commands you need to access fast to call upon certain actions/commands (some of these are not even really possible on a console controller and need a keyboard)
Plus I suppose most obviously First Person Perspective games, when you need to move in all 3 dimensions, jumping, shooting, spinning rout with split second timing and precision.
Unless you wish to dumb down games (which I don't think many really want) there needs to be some option.
For small devices, Touch, Phone, I don't see Apple doing much as there are naturally for simple/quick games on the move. You are not really going to settle down for a few hour gaming session on your phone much of the time.
Slide out keyboard I can't see happen.
To be honest, the most workable idea would be an Optional official bluetooth Apple games controller, Like a PS3, or 360 controller, with all the normal buttons and joysticks that a dev can choose to support if they want.
Then as a user, you can select between on-screen controls or the optional controller if you have one.
That's the easiest and most practical answer, and would hurt no-one and could only be a positive.
Unfortunately, we have a problem. Steve Jobs, who appears to have personal mental issues, and only wishes to pursue one path and feels offering things like such a device/option would not be a POSITIVE thing for customers, but he appears to view things like that as a NEGATIVE thing, feeling that it's admitting failure of a touch screen to be the answer to everything.
It's like a stylus. For some tasks a fine tipped stylus (like a fine tipped brush when painting) is better than a thick brush (a finger) and yet he comes out with silly childish comments like "Stylus = Fail" rather than speaking like an adult and accepting that for some things, such a option would be better.
I guess we will see what happens.
Perhaps there is more possibility in time a Bluetooth joystick controller option will be more lightly on future Android/Honeycomb tablets for gaming.
Full of Win
May 6, 08:15 PM
How much of this is from the GSM technology used? Can't CDMA pass through walls and other obsticals better than gsm ones? One would think this would make for less dropped calls.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
chaoticbear
Apr 14, 04:36 PM
Stick shared files on a NAS or in the cloud. Problem solved.
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
B
Regarding the first point - we have a NAS set up at home, but trying to format that sucker to where both of our computers could use it, the NAS recognized it, and to where we could stick >4GB files on there was a wreck. At this point, I don't remember what we put each partition in, but I know the onboard BT client only accepted one format, I had to download some tool to make a small partition for that, and then we partitioned the rest as... something. If I ever need to plug directly into my computer for anything, I'm sure it'll be a blast.
And I don't generally mind the close = sleep behavior, but it'd be nice to have the option, you know? At least my new MBA charges my phone while it's closed; the old MB had to be open. It spent a lot of time open and idle.
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
B
Regarding the first point - we have a NAS set up at home, but trying to format that sucker to where both of our computers could use it, the NAS recognized it, and to where we could stick >4GB files on there was a wreck. At this point, I don't remember what we put each partition in, but I know the onboard BT client only accepted one format, I had to download some tool to make a small partition for that, and then we partitioned the rest as... something. If I ever need to plug directly into my computer for anything, I'm sure it'll be a blast.
And I don't generally mind the close = sleep behavior, but it'd be nice to have the option, you know? At least my new MBA charges my phone while it's closed; the old MB had to be open. It spent a lot of time open and idle.
spicyapple
Sep 20, 12:31 AM
Woohoo a hard drive! :D
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
SiliconAddict
Sep 21, 08:48 AM
The more I hear about iTV the lest interested I am in it. I don't need something that integ. with my desktop computer and clogs up my home network. I want a stand alone solution. So it looks like I'm back to building a HTPC sometime next spring. Pitty too. It looks like a slick device. Just not what I'm looking to put under my TV. :(
dante@sisna.com
Sep 26, 11:58 AM
Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
In illustrator CS2 you would notice some improvement over a single processor machine on complex tasks such as use of the 3D tool and vector based special effects such as glow or shadow -- I would guess about 15% improvement -- I use illustrator daily and have tracked these processes via activity monitor.
I would bet that CS3 and versions after that will be optimized to use these processors.
I run Illustrator on a Quad G5 now and it makes a siginificant difference over the Dual G5's.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
I would disagree with this: My Quad G5 destroys the Dual 2.7 in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, iMovie HD, etc. No contest. Both in single app use and especially multitasking.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
Amen! Me Too! Quad G5 is just fine for now!
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
In illustrator CS2 you would notice some improvement over a single processor machine on complex tasks such as use of the 3D tool and vector based special effects such as glow or shadow -- I would guess about 15% improvement -- I use illustrator daily and have tracked these processes via activity monitor.
I would bet that CS3 and versions after that will be optimized to use these processors.
I run Illustrator on a Quad G5 now and it makes a siginificant difference over the Dual G5's.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
I would disagree with this: My Quad G5 destroys the Dual 2.7 in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, iMovie HD, etc. No contest. Both in single app use and especially multitasking.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
Amen! Me Too! Quad G5 is just fine for now!
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 03:56 PM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.